CLAUDIA UMANA
v.
MRG GLAZING CONTRACTORS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellant's failure to furnish a transcript of the fee hearing prevents meaningful appellate review and results in affirmance of the trial court's attorney's fees award.
[1] An appellant's failure to provide a transcript of a fee hearing prevents appellate review of an attorney's fees award, and the trial court's determination will be affirme…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[e]ven when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it”
The court cited this principle from Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee to explain why affirmance was appropriate despite the appellant's challenges to the fee award.
Claudia Umana appealed a final judgment of foreclosure of a construction lien against MRG Glazing Contractors, Inc. Umana challenged the award of atto…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inextricably Intertwined Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 20, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0189
Lower Tribunal No. 23-988-CA-01
Claudia Umana,
Appellant,
vs.
MRG Glazing Contractors, Inc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.
Patrick J. Thompson (Lake Mary), for appellant.
Delgado Vega, PLLC and Daniel R. Vega and John B. Hinz, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Claudia Umana challenges an award of attorney's fees in a final
judgment of foreclosure of a construction lien, contending among other things that the amount of fees requested and the use of a contingency fee multiplier is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. “This Court reviews an award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion. A trial court's determination of whether claims are inextricably intertwined is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Aquastar Holdings LLC v. Avant Design Grp., Inc., 421 So. 3d 767, 770 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quoting Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. White, 97 So. 3d 907, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)). Because Umana has not furnished this court with a transcript of the fee hearing, we affirm. See Val v. Gentera Ctr. for Plastic Surgery, LLC, 419 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (burden is on appellant to demonstrate error and “[e]ven when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it").
Affirmed.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. Bonnie K. White, M.D., 97 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Aquastar Holdings LLC v. Avant Design Grp., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)